[Vision2020] Joe's Column on Intolerance

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

 Greetings:

Joe should share his columns with his fellow visionaries.  For those who do not take the Daily News, here it is.  Warning: the argument contains subtle reasoning.  Well done, Joe.

Nick Gier


By Joe Campbell
Published: 05-10-2006

[View Photo]
Much of the recent discussion in Moscow has centered on the concept of intolerance. The name ‘Intoleristas’ has been coined and used against liberal and progressive critics of conservative worldviews.

It is true that some liberals are intolerant. My fear, though, is that people often slide from this fact to the stronger claim all liberals are intolerant. For instance, a liberal condemns slavery, but some religious conservatives believe that slavery has a biblical justification. Using the above example it is argued that, to condemn such people for their acceptance of slavery, is a form of religious intolerance.

The liberal’s dilemma is related to what my colleague Michael Nelson calls “the paradox of intolerance.” Suppose that we agree that intolerance is wrong. How, then, should we behave toward the intolerant? If we criticize their views and opinions, aren’t we acting just like them? But if we fail to speak out, doesn’t that carry with it a tacit acceptance of their intolerance?

Philosophy is filled with paradoxes. Some of them are intractable but others only appear to be so. The paradox of intolerance is of the latter sort.

The paradox is based on a moral principle that we learned at our mother’s knee. Young Sam hits older brother Tom, so Tom reciprocates. Mom says, “No, Tom! Two wrongs do not make a right.” Likewise, if intolerance is wrong, then acting similarly toward the intolerant also is wrong. With this we may all agree. The question is whether or not those who criticize intolerants are themselves acting similarly.

My desktop dictionary defines ‘intolerant’ as “refusing to accept people who are different or live differently, for example people of different races or religions.” Acts of intolerance are just as likely to be directed toward individuals based on their sexual orientation. For example, the Bible has been used to support the view it is permissible to punish gay sex by death or exile. In some contexts such claims come close to hate speech, a paradigmatic example of intolerance.

I am mindful of and accept the fact that some regard gay sex as immoral. I strongly disagree with the view. As I see it, any sexual act that is immoral is immoral for reasons that are independent of its sexuality. For instance, rape is immoral because it is a violent act done against the will of another. In most sexual acts involving consenting adults, however, it is difficult for me to identify a harm of which society should be concerned.

Others disagree. Disagreement is one thing. Sadistic comments generated toward a minority class with a history of persecution is another. As a liberal, I acknowledge everyone has the right to his or her own opinion. Allowing people to express those beliefs is a social good. Debate and discussion are vital to a free society. They make it better than it would be otherwise. Liberalism requires a significant level of tolerance, more perhaps than others are willing to allow.

Does my condemnation of hateful remarks made toward gays and lesbians suggest an inconsistency in my liberalism or secularism? In a word, “No.”

Though people are free to voice their opinions it does not follow they are permitted to say anything they wish. Freedom of speech allows for restrictions against harmful speech, for instance. Moreover, even though the law protects some hateful speech, such behavior should still be avoided for reasons of civility, courtesy, and respect.

One might reply directing threatening comments towards gays and lesbians is justifiable if it has its basis in religious belief. Thus, in voicing my disapproval I am “refusing to accept people who are different,” our working definition of “intolerance.”

However, not all criticisms of intolerance reflect intolerance. Sam hits Tom and Tom responds: “Listen, Sam! Hitting is wrong.” Sam’s action and Tom’s action are not equivalent. I avoid hypocrisy as long as I don’t use threatening speech towards people with whom I disagree.

Joe Campbell is an associate professor of philosophy at Washington State University. He and his family have lived in Moscow for nearly 10 years. He is co-founder of the Inland Northwest Philosophy Conference and co-editor of the “Topics in Contemporary Philosophy Series” on MIT Press. He also is a founding member of the Cowgirl Chocolates/Red Door softball team. Town Crier II is a weekly series of columns contributed by 13 local writers. The Town Crier columns run on Wednesday.